I realize you stated later that you may have misunderstood me, but since you didn't address anything specifically, I would still like to address what you said.

I completely disagree with your premise and explanation of the constitution and its standing. as the supreme law of the land

The Constitution is not the "supreme law of the land," Natural Law is. The Constitution is just a legal (AKA fictional) framework which defines the fictional limits of the governmental corporation (AKA a fictional entity).

All law must fit into it and not violate it

Well, all law can violate the framework (Constitution)l, and indeed it happens all the time. Whether or not a law is such a violation is subject to interpretation (opinion). Indeed, the debates on those opinions are effectively (in practice) the primary role of our government, i.e. that is what we have been trained to focus on. With regards Natural Law, all human laws cannot violate them, but people can believe that they can through our fiction. People believe that that fiction is reality, and through that belief they can act in "violation" of the Natural Laws. That is a function of training (brainwashing) from the PTB, not actual.

[Laws] primary function is to limit government duties and power

Well, its primary function is really to create a false reality. If people understood that, its falseness could be used to help aid social interactions. In some ways it does aid in social interactions, but without a fundamental appreciation of what it really is (create a false reality), it generally attempts to violate our Jurisdiction. A list of the Real Laws includes our Sovereignty and our Jurisdiction. Human laws, our fictions, can give us grease for a bunch of Sovereigns. That only works if ALL people (or at least most people, including and especially all the people in government) understand its primary function; to wit, to provide grease through the creation of agreed upon fictions for Sovereigns to interact peacefully..

The way it is commonly phrased ("limit government duties and power"), which I otherwise agree with (though as a secondary function, or perhaps an elaboration) , doesn't explicitly explain in detail what its primary function is. That is intentional imo, and intentionally put in through the frame work of its representational government (the "Republic"). That doesn't mean that a Republic can't function without the fuckery, I am only saying that the definitions of our Republic aid in the fuckery.

including the 10th thst states thst the state and the citizen have the final say.

The problem with that is, it is ripe for abuse through Mob Rule. And that's if that abuse is functioning properly (by design).

The First Rule must be "You are Sovereign, and your Jurisdiction can't be violated by Natural Law". That First Rule must be branded on our soul (indeed, it is, though that brand is covered over, by design). It being the required First Rule for any reasonable government isn't really a "rule," it's really just a required declaration of what is, so that everyone understands what's really going on. That declaration helps prevent the fuckery of brainwashing and lying, nothing more. That "First Rule" was stated in the DOI, but it was fucked with in the Rhetoric to create false beliefs, and it never made it into the Constitution. Indeed, there are direct (attempted) violations of our Sovereignty and our Jurisdiction all over the place. The most easily seen of those violations (or attempted violations) is in the 5th Amendment, though there are other violations just as bad, even if they are more subtle.

It was hoped a man would frame his conscience with Gods Word which is the supreme law of the world

The Supreme Law of the Universe was written on the conscience of man by The Source of All Things. I disagree that it didn't happen. It did. We have just been taught to subdue our fundamental understanding of what that means.

I also disagree that "God's Word" was a part of that writing. (Assuming you mean the Bible, or at least the first half of it, collectively called the Tanakh, or "Old Testament" if you prefer.)

The foundational part of "Gods Word" (OT) was actually written, without controversy, by a bunch of Jewish Elites (Levites, AKA the Priest Class). This group were the direct descendants of other Jewish Elites (mostly Levites) trained in Babylon. Their "God" was named YHWH, and their writings (later called the Tanakh) were all about how the people of that region (a genetic group with a demanded belief system on penalty of death) were the most important entities in the universe, given the God given right to rule over all other people. The foundation of that book was called "The Law," and it was written by those Jewish Elites. (If you dig into it, the legacy of that group still writes, or at least controls all the laws we have today for the most part). Not counting that final addendum, those statements are without controversy.

Other addendums to those statements do have controversy. The purpose of that writing is hugely controversial. Huge swaths of people have been made to believe that anyone who thinks that "The Word" is "controversial" is evil, or at least "fundamentally wrong." I suggest there is good evidence and debate to the contrary. Indeed, I think (or at least hope) that an appreciation of the evidence of how that book came to be (and some of the content within in it) is one of the functions of the GA.

The current Matrix (common beliefs and institutions) was created mostly by Elite Jews (or their minions). For those that appreciate it, many here think that Matrix was created somewhere around the late 19th or early 20th centuries. Some think it was created earlier (17th, or 16th e.g.). I suggest the framework was actually created (in the current Israel region) around the 5th to 3rd centuries BC, and exported into Rome (and thus the rest of the world) after the fall of the 2nd Temple (1st century AD), but the same intentions and methodologies of that group may have started even earlier (13th BC e.g.).